CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I believe so... It just seems to unlikely for all of this to have happened without any forethought... I mean really, our universe is so complex and utterly amazing that not having a supreme being is like a carved statue just popping out of the ground.
I agree that the universe is pretty amazing and it's hard to fathom how such complex things could arise without a creator but if you delve deep into the core of all these complex things you find they are really just a bunch of very simple things reacting to the laws of physics.
The problem with saying something looks complex, therefore it must have a designer is that it's a self-defeating argument. Think about it this way, which of these two things do you think would be more complex, a common house fly or a highly intelligent and powerful supreme being capable of creating a fly? I would think the supreme being would be far more complex. So if a fly is too complex to exist without a creator, then an intelligent and powerful supreme being is even less likely to exist without a creator. Since something had to exist without a creator my bet would be on the less complex thing.
Even though exponentially, you are comparing creation of a fly or the world which is "physical" to God who is outside the boundaries of physics. How can the creator of physics be bound with in it?
So the argument is that you can not compare within the same scale of complexity because your scale is bound by physics.
You're claiming that this creator created physics. What evidence do you have to support this claim?
Even if god did create physics that doesn't mean god is not complex. The ability to create physics, create and manipulate matter, or even form a thought would require some degree of complexity.
Evidence to support the claim that God created physics is from our role models in religion. They said 1400 years ago that God is not bound by time or space ( the two main elements of physics along with matter)
"He "Allah" initiated creation most initially and commenced it originally, without undergoing reflection, without making use of any experiment, without innovating any movement, and without experiencing any aspiration of mind. He allotted all things their times, put together their variations gave them their properties, and determined their features knowing them before creating them, realising fully their limits and confines and appreciating their propensities and intricacies."
How do you know he isn't just making it all up, just like all the other religions out there?
I know you take your religion very seriously but I don't believe Muhammad was a prophet of god for two reasons. First, I don't believe in god. Second, if there was a god I don't believe he would have someone like Muhammad as a prophet because he was a...
That "nonsense" is taken directly from Muslim sources such as the Quran, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. If you actually looked at the references you would see that nearly every word on those pages is direct quotes from Muslim sources.
Do you deny that Muhammad married a 6 year old and had sex with her when she was 9? Sahih Bukhari 5:58:236 clearly says, "he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old."
Do you deny that Muhammad beat his wife? Sahih Muslim 4:2127 says, "He struck me on the chest which caused me pain"
Do you deny that Muhammad had a man tortured and killed so that he could take his treasure, and then raped the man's wife? That page I referenced had all the details.
The video contains vivid explanation of the marriage of Aisha to the prophet.
Keep in mind that many historians were corrupt, and many narrations are politicized.
And keep in mind that there are many who have misinterpreted the Quran and gave false teachings.
So if the claim that the prophet used to torture people is true, how did everyone at his time love him and testify that he was of high morals, even his enemies.
His enemies used to sneak by his house just to listen to him recite.
Your opinions are taken from corrupt sources that are biased and look at Islam from a false perspective.
If only you new the values that the prophet had and the morals and teachings in islam, your opinion would be different.
His first argument is that she may have been in her teens, depending on how you calculate things. Every single one of these hadith say Aisha was 9 when Muhammad consummated his marriage with her.
-Sahih Bukhari
-Sahih Muslim
-Abu Dawud
-Al-Tabari
-Sunan Nasa’i
-Ibn Majah
-Ibn Ishaq
-Ibn Kathir
-Ibn Qayyim
-Mishkat al-Masabih
So do you believe all the hadith are wrong and the one man in that video is correct? Even if he is correct and Aisha was a teen, I already pointed out that the Qur'an says it's okay to marry prepubescent girls. So, do you agree with the Qur'an? Do you think 50+ year old men should be allowed to marry and have sex with little girls who haven't even reached puberty?
His second argument in the video is that it doesn't really matter if she was 9 because it was normal in that culture to marry a 9 year old. That may make him feel better about it, but it does nothing to sway me. I don't care if it was normal in that culture, I don't believe a benevolent god would want a 50+ year old man to have sex with a 9 year old, especially his prophet. This is a 9 year old. No adult should be having sex with someone that young. This is a 6 year old, the age of Aisha when Muhammad married her. A 6 year old can barely even tie their shoes, but Muhammad thought a 6 year old was old enough to marry him. I'm sorry, but there is no way I could ever believe that a man who would marry a child that young is a prophet of god.
"So if the claim that the prophet used to torture people is true, how did everyone at his time love him and testify that he was of high morals, even his enemies."
Do you have written testimony from everyone at his time saying they loved him and that he was of high morals or just a handful of writings from the hadith? Hitler was also admired and respected by his followers, but that doesn't mean he didn't do terrible things.
"His enemies used to sneak by his house just to listen to him recite."
As you can see, the verse is actually pertaining to divorce and it is not instructing Muslims in pedophilia. One may ask how did the Islamophobes come to such a horrific allegation. Is it a totally baseless allegation or do they support it with some sort of argumentation?
Well their allegations are based on two fallacious arguments, both of which are addressed:
Their first argument:
Their allegation is in fact based on ‘those who have no courses’. They allege that this term refers to those who are still pre-pubescent. They are correct; it does refer to those who are yet to have their period. The problem here is that the islamophobic critic adds into this verse their own interpretation. They allege that this verse means that Muslims can have sex with pre-pubescent girls (paedophilia) as Muslims are allowed to conduct marriages between immature girls and men. This, of course, is their mischievous addition to the text. It may fool the one who is unversed with the context and the norms of the time in Arabia.
In Semitic communities, including Jewish communities (the community of Jesus included too) people would marry off their daughters to older men despite their daughters being immature (i.e. pre-pubescent). The girls would have to wait for maturity (ie puberty) before consummating the marriage. Of course (in Islam) once the girl has reached a mature age she decides if she wants the marriage to stand (I stress this so nobody goes away with the idea that Islam allows forced marriage). If she agrees upon it then she can consummate the marriage and live as husband and wife. The term to describe this (marrying off before maturity) would be ‘betrothal’, the most well known example of betrothal in history would be that of Mary being betrothed to Joseph, before Mary and Joseph came together for consummation (i.e. before Mary’s full maturity) she became pregnant with Jesus via immaculate conception.
This example is not given to digress but to illustrate that this did happen it is an example that Christians, Jews and Muslims can relate to. None of the communities mentioned (Islamic, Christian or Jewish) allowed sex with the girl before maturity so any accusation that disagrees with this fact is a false accusation. As we are speaking of Muslims I feel compelled to show that Islam does not allow sex with immature girls. This will be highlighted through two examples:
1. Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) took part in this type of union too where the parents of a lady named Aisha betrothed their daughter (Aisha) to Muhammad (pbuh) and Muhammad (pbuh) and the parents of the girl waited until she had reached puberty before consummation of the marriage was allowed to take place. This is a recorded fact in history and the waiting period was roughly three years.
2. The all-encompassing example in this regard is given by looking at Islamic Law which is based on the Quran and the teachings of the last Prophet of Allah. So the bigot really should have looked at Islamic law (Jurisprudence) concerning marriage before making such an allegation. Islamic law does not allow sex with minors (both girls and boys). According to Islamic Law males can only have sexual contact with a female, if both parties are physically and mentally mature. The physical aspect refers to the maturity (having reached puberty) and mentally mature refers to somebody who is mentally capable (for example, you may have a mentally handicapped lady who has attained physical maturity but may be mentally handicapped, thus she would be deemed to be amongst those who are not eligible for marriage).
Their second argument:
The alternative argument follows a slightly different despite leading to the same allegation. The argument follows the same unscholarly skeleton as their first argument; both arguments are built on their own interpolations and interpretations into the clear text of the Quran.
In this case they bring forth another verse from the Quran (33:49) and try to impose their understanding of the verse into the previously mentioned Quranic verse (65:4); I will quote an English translation of the Quran of the new verse, 33:49-
O ye who believe! When ye marry believing women, and then divorce them before ye have touched them, no period of 'Iddat have ye to count in respect of them: so give them a present. And set them free in a handsome manner.
Just to help the reader understand an Iddah/Iddat is merely a woman's post marital waiting period (of time), this period of time must expire before she marries again. There are four wisdoms behind the Iddat period (given by Abdul-Karim Zidan, Nazarat fi ash-Shari`ah al-Islamiyyah):
1- To discern whether the woman is pregnant or not. 2- Shari`ah has ordained the period of `Iddah to avoid any confusion of lineage which may result from the woman's pressing need of marriage. 3- The period a woman spends in `Iddah whether short or otherwise sheds light on the seriousness of marriage and how far it is a sacred bond. 4- It allows the man and the woman to think twice before breaking up the family tie, especially in cases where divorce is revocable. (Source: The Kuwaiti Encyclopaedia of Fiqh)
So, in short, the Quran (33:49) teaches us that that there is no Iddat if the man did not touch the wife (i.e. he did not have sex with her). However, for the immature girl we realise she has an Iddat. One may wonder what is the benefit for an immature girl to have an Iddat. We must remember that the girl’s family would have been responsible for setting up the marriage therefore any breaking of this marriage contract would have been between the husband (and/or his family) and the family of the girl. Family ties are very important in Islam therefore an Iddat gives the two parties a period of time to reconcile. In short, emotions would be more prominent in this type of divorce as opposed to a divorce between a mature female and male.
Going back to their claim; the Islamophobe uses verse 33:49 and then suggests that the previously mentioned verse (65:4) allows sex with pre-pubescent girls as 65:4 teaches Muslims that girls who have not had puberty have an Iddat if they are divorced. This is their claim, it is not substantiated by the Quran, and nowhere does the Quran allow sex with pre-pubescent girls. The Islamophobe uses textual acrobatics and his own interpolations in order to argue for his allegation.
The Quran gives a general instruction in 33:49 but simply gives an exception in 65:4. So it is clear that girls (immature) who have been married and are divorced are afforded an Iddat despite not having had sex with her husband. These girls are immature girls who have never even lived with the husband never mind having had sex with the husband. These immature girls live with their parents/guardians until they reach maturity and only after that they can consummate the marriage if the girl agrees to the union. Contrary to the Islamophobes’ claims these girls are not allowed to have sex with the husband until they reach maturity.
There are passages in the hadith that indicate that Aisha didn't go through puberty until she was a teenager and also indicate that he had sex with her before she reached puberty. However I'm willing to ignore all those and pretend that she went through puberty at the early age of 9. That still doesn't make the situation any better. Whether she went though puberty or not doesn't change the fact that a 54 year old man had sex with a 9 year old and was betrothed to her when she wasn't even old enough to understand what it truly means to be married. So unless you can somehow convince me that Aisha was a grown adult when she married Muhammad, no amount of rationalizing is going to convince me that what Muhammad did was acceptable behavior, especially for someone who is supposed to be a prophet of a benevolent god.
The hadiths may be true and may be false. She might have been 9, 15, or between 15 and 19. But there is no doubt that she was mature.
If only one hadith said she was 9 and all the others said she was an adult, then I could believe that the one was wrong, but 10 hadiths say she was 9.
Why do you focus on the negative possibility and you know well that narrators and historians used to lie to satisfy the corrupt califs?
I focus on the negative possibility because that is the one that is supported by the most evidence. I agree that narrators and historians sometimes lie, and that's one of the reasons I don't believe books like the Bible or Qu'ran, because I believe they are filled with fictional stories.
This video explains Muhammad (p), his values, his roles, and his morals.
Sorry, but I'm not going to watch a 3 and a half hour video about Muhammad when I already have no doubt in my mind that the god he worships is fictional because it is the same god as the old testament, whom I have studied extensively.
I appreciate you taking the time to debate me, but I don't think we will ever come to a consensus on this topic.
I don't necessarily think he was crazy. There is no way to really know the true story behind Jesus. There are a lot of different possibilities.
1. He was crazy and though he was the son of god.
2. He lied about being the son of god.
3. He never claimed to be the son of god and people just made that part up.
4. He never even existed.
5. He is the son of god.
I think 1-4 are far more likely than #5. I think #4 is unlikely since there are a few non-christian sources to support his existence. I also think #1 is unlikely since not that many people are crazy. I think 2 and 3 are the most likely scenarios. If I had to bet on it I would probably go with #3.
Pretend for a moment that you have never heard of Christianity. If someone came up to you and said that they were the son of god, would you believe them?
What's your point? There have been hundreds of Leprechaun sightings around the world. Do you believe those people actually saw a Leprechaun?
It all depends on the source really. If they say they wrote down the people who saw the Leprechaun and it was backed up then, yes I would believe people actually saw the Leprechaun and they provide proof of the Leprechaun sightings.
Plus, the people who witnessed Jesus' "miracles" are only mentioned in the Bible... which is clearly a questionable source.
We also have non-religious sources that say Jesus was alive and that He was a real person who performed miracles.
It all depends on the source really. If they say they wrote down the people who saw the Leprechaun and it was backed up then, yes I would believe people actually saw the Leprechaun and they provide proof of the Leprechaun sightings.
Really? Even though we know the origin of the leprechaun myth? I think you're only saying you'd believe it because you know I wanted you to say "no".
We also have non-religious sources that say Jesus was alive and that He was a real person who performed miracles.
Here's the thing, we can't confirm the existence of Jesus because the people who say he performed miracles and the people who say he didn't weren't alive until decades after Jesus died. Josephus would be one example. He "confirms" the miracles of Jesus, yet he wasn't even born until about five years after Jesus supposedly died. And on top of all that, the references he made to Jesus performing miracles are believed by most historians to be forgeries by early Christians. Josephus was Jewish, he wouldn't have believed that Jesus was the messiah.
So, Josephus is the most common secular source that Christians use to support the existence of Jesus and his miracles, but as I just pointed out... that evidence isn't plausible. Would you mind providing me with some more quotes from secular sources?
You can not see God because you are blind. God has left numerous evidence that you have to dig up and search for, but he has been so generous in providing humanity with the holy books such as Torah, Bible, and Quran to bring us closer.
You can not see God if you possess a dark heart. You have to open your heart, reflect, and introspect.
Their is no definite emperical evidence of God, otherwise their would be no reason for faith. However faith is assured through different inferences we can make.
1) His Word (Ex. 3:14, Hebrew 1:1, Luke 24:27)
2) His Son, Jesus Christ, in conjunction with prophecies (John 1:1 & 14, John 14:8-9, Collosians 2:9, Hebrew 1:1-3)
3) Through creation in conjunction wih his word (Psalms 19:1-2, Romans 1:20)
4) The witness of the believers in conjunction with his word (Acts 1:8, Acts 2:1-4, 1 John 1:1-4)
All of these are not concrete physical evidences, but they are evidences nevertheless that God has laid us to reveal Himself. You cannot say that God doesn't have evidence, you have just reached a different conclusion, or overlooked or dismissed one of the above evidences.
"Praise is due to Allah whose worth cannot be described by speakers, whose bounties cannot be counted by calculators and whose claim (to obedience) cannot be satisfied by those who attempt to do so, whom the height of intellectual courage cannot appreciate, and the divings of understanding cannot reach; He for whose description no limit has been laid down, no eulogy exists, no time is ordained and no duration is fixed. He brought forth creation through His Omnipotence, dispersed winds through His Compassion, and made firm the shaking earth with rocks."
About 1400 years ago, the big bang was explained in the Holy Quran:
In the name of Allah, the benificent, and merciful
"Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We clove them asunder (fataqna)? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
No human knows even in the slightest bit. All they do know, is that we came into existence somehow.
For there is no factual basis whatsoever that entails that a God created this. We could have just as well have been created by highly intelligent creatures whom worked on this project and then brought it to life (Or multiple Gods, multidimensional beings etc.).
On another point...how did we just happen to end up with everything we could possibly need to survive and more?
This is all clearly a very intelligent design.
Unless someone can explain how something random, such as two subatomic particles coming from nothing(seriously?), then causing creation through crushing and collision(I don't know the exact process), which then somehow we end up with a finely tuned living environment, with a sun, which is basically the life source for just about everything along with light so that we don't walk around and stub our toes, a moon to control the tides and all the things we need to stay healthy and be happy creatures. This random occurrence even created pictures with the stars(The fuck?). How can something so random(The Big Bang) create order and star pictures?
I think the rational conclusion would be that we were definitely created, but by what? A question which it's answer can only be speculated upon, it appears..
That's like saying people who believe they have a cookie, really have a cookie. People who don't, you can't really change their perspective unless they want it to change.
Implying that they'd have a cookie once they believed they do, just because they believe.
But of course, believing you have a cookie won't make the cookie real and existent, just like believing you don't have a cookie won't make it go away.
That's like saying people who believe they have a cookie, really have a cookie. People who don't, you can't really change their perspective unless they want it to change.
that is obviously not what i meant to say. but since you don't get it, what i meant to put across was, you cannot change a person's belief. you can't impose on them what you believe is true.
But of course, believing you have a cookie won't make the cookie real and existent, just like believing you don't have a cookie won't make it go away.
that is very weirdly put. but i would just say, it is not about having something. its usually an assumption. which can be true or false.
if i assume fantastic creatures are real, it is my assumption. there isn't much you can do to make me believe otherwise.
similarly, if you don't believe god is real, i can't make you believe god is real. and if you believe He is real, i can't make you think otherwise. unless you change your opinion obviously.
Just because you have a certain opinion doesn't mean it's true - an opinion can't make something real if it's not. Maybe a person is deluded, but it's not actually real. It's an illusion.
exactly. so, opinions may vary. but what i believe in may be true, and what you believe in may not. or vice versa. that what i accept is what is important.
